Year 7-10 E-Learning in Languages (ELL) Teacher Reports
Teacher Names: W Gibbs (Year 11 German x2), M Lee (Year 10 Japanese), E Liu (Year 10 & 11 Chinese), B Lynch (Year 10 French), F Quirke (Year 10 French), A Scott (Year 10 German x2) We would also like to acknowledge two people from our school community whose support of this project has been invaluable: · E Goddard, e-Learning Director, ensured that each language class had access to ICT for two or three periods per term, introduced language teachers and classes to new technologies and readily supported them whenever needed. · D Scott, IT Consultant, volunteered to collate and analyse the survey data for us.
Context for our research: Six Year 10 Chinese, French, German and Japanese classes and two Year 11 German classes in a co-ed state secondary school with approx 2300 students (2010), from the following backgrounds (ERO report, 2007): NZE – 39%, Maori – 14%, Samoan – 8%, Indian – 6%, Tongan – 5%, Chinese – 5%, Other European – 4%, Other Asian – 4%, Cook Island – 3%, Niuean – 3%, South East Asian - 2%, Other Pacific - 2%, Other Ethnicities – 5%.
Note: For this project we use the terms ‘retention’ and ‘attrition’ to mean the number of students who opt to continue or discontinue learning languages.
Inquiry topic: Virtual communication in the second language (L2) using asynchronous tools for genuine purposes: We wanted our students to take part in virtual L2 exchanges firstly with other L2 learning students in our own school, secondly with other L2 learners in New Zealand and thirdly with first language (L1) speakers in L2 nations. Student voice was used in the following ways: · Students contributed to baseline data which was used to inform project goals · From the baseline data, a netiquette document for L2 virtual exchanges was compiled · Students reflected on the learning objectives of each set of ICT lessons and completed Plus Minus Interesting (PMI) surveys which allowed teachers to consider the programme direction and teaching strategies · Students completed subject choice surveys at the start and end of year. The theoretical base that underpinned our topic includes: · Intercultural Language Teaching (iCLT) principles that state good language learning pedagogy o Engages students in genuine social interaction o Acknowledges and responds appropriately to diverse learners and learning contexts o Helps students manage interaction across cultural boundaries anticipating misunderstandings and difference in meanings (Byram 1995) o Gives students the ability to negotiate meaning across cultural boundaries and to establish one’s own identity as a user of another language · Ellis principles that state successful instructed language learning o Ensures students acquire a rich repertoire of formulaic expressions o Focuses predominantly on meaning o Requires opportunities for output as well as input o Gives students the opportunity to interact in the L2, which is central to developing L2 proficiency o Creates opportunities for more differentiated instruction as students work to their ‘in-built syllabus’ · The New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) on e-learning and pedagogy (page 36) · Te Aho Arataki Marau, which provides a model of language teaching as inquiry (page 20) · Vygotsky’s 1978/1986 ideas regarding* o Knowledge being social in nature and constructed through a process of collaboration, interaction, and communication among learners in social settings o The student’s zone of proximal development and the scaffolding that supports learning, including peer and teacher feedback · Research from a variety of Second Language Acquisition experts* (Bley-Vroman, 1986; Carroll & Swain, 1993; Chaudron, 1988; Mackey, Gass & McDonough, 2000; Rutherford, 1987; White, 1991, 1989) that indicates corrective feedback plays a role in L2 learning · NZALT research on retention and attrition rates that found that students discontinue learning languages they enjoy if they feel they will not succeed · The Ministry of Education document, 2007, Te whai i nga taumata atakura: Supporting Maori achievement in bachelors degrees and the Education Review Office report, 2006, The achievement of Maori Students, which give guidance regarding engaging Maori students in learning. * These references are quoted in the December 2004 article by Guoxing Yu, Perception, Practice and Progress, in the Asian EFL Journal, Volume 6, Issue 4, Article 9. Refer also to the bibliography below. The improvement we wanted to achieve, the evidence that indicated its importance and the research that we used to underpin our decision: We chose asynchronous virtual exchanges in the hope that genuine communication (online talk) in the L2 would increase student engagement and result in some increase in retention rates into senior L2 classes. The evidence that showed this to be important was the continued low retention rates into senior language classes at MAGS over many years and the knowledge gained through teacher observation and student surveys that students who enjoy their language learning will choose to continue. We must, however, indicate other factors in students’ subject choices. Teacher observation (A) and student surveys (B) provided us with information regarding these, as did the writings of the 2003 National Languages Advisor (C). A: Teachers observed the following as factors in students’ subject choices: · School languages policy (i.e. which languages are compulsory and at which levels) · Timetable (the number of hours studied, option subject clashes, competition from other subjects, single entry points to learning, multi-level classes) · Influence of parents and friends. They also noted two factors that could limit the success of the project: · Access to ICT. In the two computer suites available to all students at MAGS, NCEA classes have priority as do junior core classes so bookings for languages classes need to be made a term in advance, which means there is little hope of ‘seamless’ integration of ICT into language learning. · Differences in time zones, school years and language learning experience in L2 countries. To mitigate these two factors we chose asynchronous virtual tools for our genuine communication. As a result, students were able to access the tools from home and were also reminded that school computers were available before and after school, at interval and at lunchtime. B: Student survey responses indicated that those who opt to keep learning a language do so because they enjoy it (39%), they like the challenge (22%), they like the teacher (20%), they think it will help their career (18%). We also know from the same surveys that 36% of students opt to stop learning a language because they think it will not help their career, because they do not enjoy it (30%), because they find it too difficult (23%), because they find it takes too much time compared to other subjects (18% ) and because of timetable clashes (16%). Owing to the above factors indicated by students and teachers, our senior classes at MAGS are not only small but they also contain only the brightest students and native speakers. C: In a 2003 New Zealand Association of Language Teachers (NZALT) communication for International Languages Week, the national languages advisor quoted the ERO Winter Report of 1994, which answered the question, “Do you have to be bright to learn languages?” “The study of a second language is not intrinsically difficult; it is the exigencies that schools place on the second language learning and teaching that makes the study difficult. It is the organization and delivery of the curriculum rather than student ability that perpetuates the perceived elite status of second language learning in schools.” In some schools language students have as little as one term in Year 9 and a semester in Year 10. It is hardly surprising then that these students find it extremely difficult to achieve high grades in NCEA, when other students at this level have studied the language for three full years…or more! Nor can it be surprising that students in these schools choose to drop the language because they don’t think they are any good at it (their results are not as good as in other subjects) even if they really enjoy it. At MAGS in 2010, most Year 9 students must study two languages for half a year, three hours a week then in Year 10 may opt for languages, which they study all year for an average of two and a half periods a week. This interrupted and limited learning time and the subsequent pressure to cover the curriculum is a major factor in attrition rates. Even so, we hoped that student involvement in virtual exchanges for genuine purposes would go some way to counteract these mitigating factors.
Focus Question: Does the use of social learning software for genuine social interaction promote student engagement and encourage increased retention in language classes from Year 10 to Year 11?
How we went about answering the focus question, what we introduced, changed or tried out in our teaching. 1. At the first PD day, teachers explored asynchronous online tools and environments and decided to use the blog (with wysiwig editor) on myclasses (the MAGS online classroom), Voki, threaded discussion on Nicenet, and also considered the wiki in myclasses. During the first set of ICT classes, we discovered difficulties in myclasses with Japanese and Chinese scripts and were concerned about workload and security when inviting non-MAGS students into the MAGS network. At the second PD day, we decided to move to Edmodo as the online environment for our virtual exchanges to address these issues. Edmodo is a web-based public tool accessible to educators worldwide for the purposes of social learning. It is promoted as safe in that students and teachers require codes to participate in classes/groups. The Year 11 German teacher opted to use email as his classes would be affected by internals and end-of-year NCEA preparation. 2. We planned three or four sets of lab sessions per class over the year with two or three periods (hours) each set (depending on lab access). Each set had specific learning objectives. The objectives changed over time according to lessons learned in previous sets. Teachers with multiple classes were able to make effective modifications within the same set as information derived from one class was used to improve learning in the other. 3. We set up the computers with Chinese and Japanese scripts and individual teachers kept scripts in mind as they planned. For example, Voki supported Japanese scripts but not Chinese. 4. We recognised that MAGS students want to communicate with L2 speakers in the L2 but L2 speakers might want to communicate in English. We therefore set up separate English and L2 groups in Edmodo so that English didn’t become the dominant language. Different tasks were set in each language area. 5. Feedback on accuracy in the overwhelming number of student posts soon became an issue. When students’ work was instantly published, teachers struggled with the balance between focus on meaning and focus on form. We explored ways to give students feedback in a manner that would not discourage participation. Different teachers developed different strategies: Teacher 1 assisted students as they drafted their posts and posted a positive response with feedback and feed forward for each of the 26 students. She also wrote explanatory screen notes to each student regarding each error in their work. It took many hours and could not be sustained. Teacher 2 reviewed individual posts and replied online with general comments e.g. check plural endings. She went back to check whether students had followed her instructions. During lab time she verbally commented on effective technology and language features. Her 27 students were given opportunity during class time to edit and improve their postings. Teacher 3 scaffolded students’ posts before the lab session by asking students to write first on paper. In the lab, with a smaller class of 16 students, she was able to help students correct their work before they posted it. Then she went back online, edited errors in students’ posts and talked to them about it afterwards. It took a very long time. After the first session, teacher 4 realised it was taking too much time to correct and comment on individual posts so she directed students to a good sample of work then commented on common language errors and asked the 23 students to edit their posts accordingly. Students were then asked to edit two or three others’ work, starting with those posts without any comments yet. With two classes of students (23 and 24 respectively), teacher 5 realised she couldn’t correct work in the normal manner and so read the posts, gathered common errors and taught to them at the start of the next lesson, asking students first to self-edit then peer-edit. In the second set of classes, she set up groups of four in Edmodo. Students posted and edited in their online groups, which was more manageable. Teacher 6 projected the L2 emails sent to his students onto the classroom screen and used them to model language and to teach formulaic expressions which students then used in their return emails. How we incorporated student voice and teacher self-review in the inquiry cycle: Students completed baseline surveys on the subjects of intercultural understandings, appropriate technologies for online talk and the dos and don’ts of online communication. They also completed a start of year and end of year survey on their reasons for dropping or continuing a language. After each lab set, students completed PMI surveys measured against the learning objectives of each set. Teachers also completed reflections after each set. How we analysed the data: From the baseline data, we discovered that the students already understood very well what appropriate online L2 communication looked like. We did not therefore look for an increase of understanding over the year. Instead, we collated the students’ baseline survey suggestions and compiled them into a one-page netiquette document that was referred to before and during each set of labs. Despite knowing what was appropriate and despite being reminded, a small number of students still chose to post inappropriately during each set of labs. They needed to be reminded that online learning requires the same level of language as classroom learning. The data from the PMI surveys after each set of labs were collated and informed individual teachers regarding the fulfilment of learning objectives in their classes and, when combined with all classes’ data, informed the planning for the next set. Data on 2009-10 retention rates were compared with data on 2010-2011 retention rates to see if the ICT element had any significant effect. The data from teacher reflections informed ongoing planning and pedagogy during the year. Note: Initially, for workload reasons, each teacher was asked to collate the data from their own classes according to a template. When an outside volunteer collated all the data we gained a better overview. We found that even having the same template and model was not sufficient to ensure data were collected and presented in a way that provided for valid comparisons and conclusions across the whole. Maori and Pasifika Students In fulfilment of school goals and separate to this project, language teachers identified Maori and Pasifika students in their mark books and reported on their language progress, learning habits and social behaviour. Of the 130 students in Year 10 language classes, 10 were Pasifika and 11 were Maori, totalling 16%. This is fewer than in the school as a whole where these ethnicities total 35%. Teachers reported that most Maori and Pasifika students who opted for Year 10 language classes were working well and achieving well except for 2 Pasifika and 4 Maori students in Year 10 French and 2 Pasifika students in Year 10 Chinese whose underachievement was due in the main to chronic absenteeism. A 2006 Education Review Office report found that when Maori students are meaningfully engaged in learning, their attendance levels are likely to be comparable to those of non-Maori students. A 2007 Ministry of Education document on supporting Maori achievement in bachelors degrees says that “(e)nsuring that students are at school, engaged in their learning, and achieving in their early secondary school years is a critical precursor for the School Plus goal of having all young people in education, training or workplace until the age 18”. We hoped that technology would meaningfully engage our underachieving Maori and Pasifika students. At the start of the year, all students in language classes were surveyed regarding computer and internet access at home. Only two students said they had no home access to the internet, one was Pasifika. Teachers of these two students made certain they had extra support using technology during ICT classes. According to Alton-Lee (2003), “(r)esearch suggests some of the most powerful ways to counter student disengagement include: · Whanau and teachers having high expectations of students · Students having high expectations of themselves · Teachers who are focused on meeting students’ needs.” As well as this focused attention during class time, languages homework help is offered during lunchtimes and after school to all students and is regularly attended by certain Pasifika and Maori students.
In summary, we found that: 1. When using Web 2.0 one-to-many online environments for language learning, there was a major increase in L2 output for authentic purposes. 2. Offering students the opportunity to use preferred web-based tools increased L2 interaction for genuine purposes. 3. Once teachers and students became proficient with the technologies, second language acquisition returned to its rightful place at the centre of learning. 4. The use of social learning software for genuine social interaction promoted student engagement and increased the relevance of language learning. 5. The use of social learning software for genuine social interaction did not significantly increase retention rates from Year 10 into Year 11. In 2009, the retention rate from Year 10 to 11 was 42%. In 2010, the retention rate from Year 10 to 11 was 45%. 6. Mitigating factors against retention (i.e. language policy, timetable issues, the influence of parents and friends, limited contact time and a class having four different teachers in one academic year) were largely beyond our control. However, student survey indicated an unrealised additional factor: more than a third of those who discontinued L2 learning said they did so because languages were not relevant to their chosen career. This is something over which we do have control. We are able to educate students in this area. 7. ICTs use teacher time differently. There is much more preparation time involved but in the ICT classroom the teacher is released to focus on individuals and give instant feedback and feed forward. Teaching with technology is thereby more student-centred. 8. The teachers in both sites of a virtual exchange need to carefully plan the timing in advance. Different time zones and school years and different levels of language experience in the L2 can scuttle communication. There is a very small window of time when successful virtual communication can take place. 9. When contact with L2 speakers occurred students had the opportunity to put their theoretical intercultural knowledge into practice. We were particularly surprised that it was so very difficult to create successful virtual exchanges using one-to-many tools with others outside MAGS. · Apart from the ample communication between language students within the school, the Year 10 German students managed to communicate with only one teacher and two students in another New Zealand school and one adult and one student via email in Bavaria. This was disappointing. Even so, valuable links with German schools that will provide a basis for communication in 2011 have been established. · The Chinese Edmodo exchange got off to a good start. MAGS students briefly communicated with eight students and their teacher at Macleans College. Then fifteen students in China signed on to Edmodo. The correspondence was, however, disrupted by differing holiday breaks in New Zealand and China and the New Zealand students’ communication appeared comparatively short and simple (they were first year language learners). However, two students managed to write more extensively and gave valuable feedback to others. · Links with Japan proved difficult to forge due to the exigencies of the chosen Japanese exchange school. Their Japanese Exchange Teacher (JET), disappointed by the response, made a point of communicating in Japanese with the 22 New Zealand students who had posted in Edmodo. In the English area of Edmodo, the JET teacher also initiated a conversation comparing aspects of New Zealand and Japan. In their posts our students indicated that they were particularly interested in her comments on the similarities between Maori and Japanese. It ended up being a rewarding experience. · Although French students communicated extensively with each other in Edmodo, no French connections were made outside the school. One French teacher contacted a school in Strasbourg where she had taught but they indicated they never use ICT for language learning due to poor facilities. The second language teacher contacted the National Languages Advisor who offered to explore the most effective ways to carry out virtual exchanges with French schools. She was very interested in our use of Edmodo and signed up to investigate. Our struggles resulted in some other very useful discoveries and side-benefits: 1. Email exchanges are useful introductions to spontaneous Web 2.0, one-to-many exchanges. Although the Year 11 German exchange school was initially hesitant owing to previous exchange failures, the NZ teacher still sent the German teacher the email addresses and personal details of his students. 19 out of the 35 NZ students received email messages. Certain recipients moved their connections to Facebook where more connections were made, even amongst students not learning German. The teacher noticed that some students used formulaic expressions learned in class and some German correspondents corrected the NZ students’ German. It was encouraging when the one-to-many communication developed naturally through Facebook and apart from teachers and school. 2. When informally surveyed, the Year 11 students did not feel this communication was a factor in their continuing or discontinuing German. The retention rate for the Year 11 group going into Year 12 was 75%. Of the 11 dropping the subject, 10 were struggling. This backs up the National Language Advisor’s 2003 claim that despite enjoyment, students will drop subjects they don’t think they will succeed in and is evidence backing up our student survey data where 23% said they dropped a language because they found it too difficult and 18% because they found it took too much time compared to other subjects. 3. Like any new worthwhile skill, second language acquisition using technology requires time. All language teachers indicated their priorities are on NCEA pathways, the NZC, Ellis and iCLT principles. In initial lab sets, when students and teachers were new to the technologies and language learning in the lab, teachers were frustrated when language acquisition took secondary place to technology. In later lab sets, as teachers and students were more proficient with the technologies, language learning was more seamlessly integrated. By the third set, 77% students said they had learned to use Edmodo, 62% said they had had fun, 60% felt they wanted more language learning time in the lab and 55% indicated they had practised language skills. Below are examples of optional student comments from their third PMI survey: “easier to learn than in class” “learnt new language skills” “learned a lot of different things” “corrects language errors” “made me think of more French words that I could use to expand my vocabulary” “could do educated things with my friends” “got to learn about what others do in their spare time” “had practice reading other people’s posts and it helped a lot” “trying new things and learning new language skills” “communicating with other schools” “ability to type in hiragana”. 4. From the start, Chinese and Japanese teachers found that technology aided the teaching and learning of scripts and they felt the project was valuable for this alone. In the Chinese class the technology provided opportunity for students to improve typing their pinyin (modern Chinese script), which would not usually have happened so quickly. In the Japanese class it extended and reinforced their learning of the different writing systems and increased students’ curiosity of this aspect of Japanese in a more integrated manner. The Japanese teacher will definitely teach the use of different scripts using technology in the future. 5. The teacher who offered the opportunity for students not confident in the L2 to prepare their L1 work first found this allowed students to more easily grasp the intricacies of the technology before moving on to working in the L2. It minimised cognitive overload. 6. One student commented: “It was interesting to know how little people know about how to use computers.” Teachers noted that although students might know how to use computers for specific purposes of interest to them, they are not always able to transfer those skills to learning, specifically second language acquisition. In addition, many PC users bemoaned having to use Macs. The concepts of tuakana-teina and ako relationships were pertinent here: skilled students were able to guide the not-so-skilled (tuakana-teina) and reciprocal learning took place as teachers became learners and learners became teachers (ako).
The significance of this inquiry into our practice and its influence on our future teaching practice: As we have been given the luxury of time to absorb, adapt and agonise over each aspect of this project, we realise that, even though second language acquisition has been enhanced, a large part of the benefit has been to our teaching practice. It has forced us to reflect on good pedagogy. We are now much more confident when using technology for second language acquisition. Significance to Individual Teachers: Teacher 1: I was the fourth teacher for my classes this year and came into the project half-way through at the start of Term III. I have used technology in the past for publishing (PPT), for tutorial programmes (Linguascope etc), for enrichment and for fun but this is the first time I have used it for virtual communication. I also frequently use data collection and analysis to facilitate review of my teaching programmes. At my arrival, I realised the work my class put onto Edmodo in the Term 3 lab sessions indicated that they were now ready to start corresponding with French-speaking peers. However, I had no contacts in French schools so I approached the national advisor. I hope to find potential virtual partners for my students in 2011. I now have a basic understanding of how Edmodo works. Teacher 2: With regard to teaching as inquiry, I found it helpful to renew student data with regular surveys and feedback to determine the direction of the next set of lab sessions. This helped to specifically pinpoint student needs at various stages throughout the year and to encourage both the students and myself to review our work. I found this data invaluable to my teaching planning and I will employ data collection in the future. This has been the first time for me using technology for virtual communication and language enrichment. In the past I have used it more for research, publication and for differentiation as I gave direction to online resources for language extension. Obviously I was aware that technology is a valuable learning tool but it is only with this project that I have had the courage and support to explore technology to specifically enrich language learning. Previously I would never have tried anything that hinted at risk or threatened student safety nor attempted such a large undertaking without the support of my department. I enjoyed the professional discussions we had about the logistics of this project and student progress. My students enjoyed their time in the lab and the attractive online learning site made them excited to immediately post in both French and English. Many motivated students were aware that by using Edmodo they were improving their French and exploring new ways to learn a language. Others who were unmotivated to write in the classroom were willing to write in this medium, even if they didn’t acknowledge the positive impact it had on their second language acquisition and confidence. It has been challenging to find French schools willing to communicate with us but next year (without having to do all the preliminary research to find an appropriate medium) will mean that we can focus on this genuine contact earlier on in 2011. Teacher 3: Using e-learning for languages has caused me to ponder the benefits of using Edmodo as a platform for students in New Zealand to communicate with students in China and in other schools in New Zealand with the purpose of sharing culture, language, ideas etc. I want students to use culture to motivate them to learn the language outside of class time to show them how everything is related to the world out there. Learning is not just about academics in the classroom but it links to the real world. ICTs facilitate this link to reality. They enable students to think about their learning in different ways. Before I began this project I found e-learning challenging. I wanted to be familiar with tools before I used them in the classroom. I knew I needed to spend a lot of time to upskill on my own and with the e-learning Director. As well as the tools we experimented with, I found others that will achieve learning goals and make learning relevant and interesting for students. I have learned a lot. The skills I have learned have been transferable to other fields as well. Teacher 4: For me the project provided a wonderful opportunity to try out technology to promote language learning. If it hadn’t been for this project I would have stayed away, thinking it to be too challenging due to lack of access. Before and during the project, it was a challenge to learn how to teach with online tools. It has been an agony to find a correct medium to channel language learning. Analysing what we have achieved has been enlightening. I realise that a lot of what I learned at teachers’ college I now know how to do in the real world of teaching. Before there was a gulf between the pedagogy and the reality. I had to throw away my ideals. After the third set it all fell into place. The ideal and the reality came together, they met. It forced me to ask what do my students know, what do I need to do: teaching as an inquiry. It forced me to reflect after each lesson on what my teaching had achieved. I thought of these things before but the project forced me to document my thoughts and it has given me valuable time to talk about these things with my colleagues. During the project, finding another group to interact with my students was the biggest challenge and I can see this happening in the future as well, unless I develop a sound network in Japan where I can explain the purpose and method face-to-face. Because of this difficulty I’m not sure whether I’ll use Edmodo but I found that using technology is an extremely useful way to engage students when it comes to language practice. I discovered that a well set up task sheet facilitates student-centred learning. Also, in particular, I discovered that teaching students how to type Japanese was a good opportunity to introduce, revise and reinforce Japanese scripts. It gave a nice natural transition from roomaji to hiragana. I will definitely teach scripts using technology in the future. Teacher 5: I was surprised by the overwhelming amount of language that one class of students can produce in one hour (including responses to each other’s postings) and by the workload if the teacher focuses on form as well as meaning. I had to let go of ‘accuracy’ and let communication become the focus. Students commented on how much they enjoyed seeing each other’s work. As a teacher I had forgotten the obvious, that although I see their work and know what they are up to, they don’t see each other’s work unless it is published. Publishing online also provides wonderful opportunities for scaffolded learning. Because of our limited contact time in junior language classes, it is easy to spend more time on the teacher-centred presentation stage of new language learning in order to ‘get through’ the curriculum. This project forced me to focus on using technology to promote student-centred learning. It was very satisfying. Even if we didn’t achieve our ultimate communication with L2 speakers, students enjoyed communicating with each other and had plenty of student-centred language practice and production. I will work hard to include technology in language teaching and learning in the future. Teacher 6: In the Year 11 group, the initial benefit was the appreciation of the application of e-learning technology. Both students and teacher learned how to use Mac computers. It was important that a large class has computers that functioned effectively. It was also important that the e-learning Director introduce each new application. I became aware that students would get side-tracked into entertaining themselves on a computer if the lesson were not strictly paced. Blogs and emails were ideal tools for a Year 11 class since self-introduction and student exchanges are a standard topic in the Year 11 curriculum. Further benefits came through the increased exposure students received from German-language emails containing idiomatic expressions and the establishment of open-ended e-friendships. Moving forward from here: A:Data Collection and Analysis In future, we intend to: 1. Hone the student survey templates 2. Repeat pertinent student surveys annually to build up a longitudinal data base 3. Use a data collation and analysis person B: Mitigating Factors We intend to: 4. Lobby for increased access to ICT 5. Lobby for increased and uninterrupted language learning time C: Setting Up Virtual Exchanges We intend: 6. Maintain hard-won exchange links with L2 schools 7. Plan exchanges with L2 teachers well in advance 8. Continue the conversation with the National Languages Advisor concerning ways to carry out exchanges with France D: Teaching Practice We intend to: 9. Closely monitor Maori and Pasifika students’ engagement and ICT use 10. Educate students on the relevance of languages to their future career choices 11. Use email as an introduction to Web 2.0 communication tools 12. Use ICT to teach Japanese and Chinese scripts In Conclusion 13. Our ultimate goal is that virtual exchanges with L2 speakers will be sustained long after any school project ends, taking on a life of its own and that it will enthuse our students with a life-long love of language learning. This has already occurred to some degree with the Year 11 German students. We intend to share our findings by: · Presenting them to the Academic Committee of the Board of Trustees · Sending them to the National Languages Advisor · Presenting this report to the MOE · Sharing knowledge gained at local languages cluster meetings.
References used in the compiling of this report and during the year: · Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence synthesis. Wellington: Ministry of Education. · Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Cavanagh, T., Teddy, L. (2007). Te Kōtahitanga Phase 3 Whanaungatanga: Establishing a Culturally Responsive Pedagogy of Relations in Mainstream Secondary School Classrooms. Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education. · Byram, M. 1995. Acquiring Intercultural Competence. A Review of Learning Theories, in L. Sercu: 53-69. · Cooper, Terry. (2007). ICT in the Languages World, Sources and resources. Retrieved February 27 2009 from http://www.languages-ict.org.uk/ · Edmodo (2010). Online at: http://www.edmodo.com · Education Counts (2009), Retention of students in senior secondary schools (January 2009) Retrieved on August 23 2009 from the MOE web site: http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/data_cubes/student_participation/schooling/3736 · Education Review Office (2006). The achievement of Maori Students. · Education Review Office (1994). Second Language Learning. National Education Evaluation Report No. 6, Winter 1994. Wellington: Education Review Office. · Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed Second Languages Acquisition: A literature Review. Wellington: Ministry of Education. www.minedul.govt.nz
· Hattie, J.A.C. (2005). Teachers make a difference: What is the nature evidence that makes a difference to learning?. Research Conference paper Using Data to Support Learning. p. 11-31.
· Krashen, Stephen D. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, in the Language Teaching Methodology Series (1995).
· Ministry of Education (2007), Te whai i nga taumata atakura: Supporting Maori achievement in bachelors degrees · Ministry of Education. (2008), Key Evidence and how we must use it to improve system performance for Māori. Wellington: Learning Media · Ministry of Education. (2009), Ka Hikitia managing for success: The Maori education strategy, 2008-2012 Updated 2009, Wellington: Learning Media. · Ministry of Education (2009). Te Aho Arataki Marau mō te Ako i Te Reo Māori - Kura Auraki: Curriculum Guidelines for Teaching and Learning Te Reo Māori in English-medium Schools: Years 1-13. Wellington: Learning Media Ltd for Crown/Ministry of Education · Ministry of Education (2007). Te whai i nga taumata atakura: Supporting Maori achievement in bachelors degrees. · Ministry of Education (2007), The New Zealand Curriculum, Wellington: Learning Media Ltd. for Crown/Ministry of Education · Newton, J., Yates, E., Shearn, S., and Nowitzki, W. (2009). Intercultural Communicative Language Teaching (iCLT): Implications for Effective Teaching and Learning. Report to Ministry of Education (in press) Wellington. · New Zealand Association of Language Teachers (2003). International Languages Week communication online: www.international-languages-week.org.nz/ilw.pdf · New Zealand Qualifications Authority. (2007). Te rautaki Māori me te mahere whakatinana a te mana tohu mātauranga o Aotearoa: The Māori strategic and implementation plan for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority 2007–2012. Wellington: New Zealand Qualifications Authority · Prensky, Mark. (2008). The Role of Technology in Teaching and in the Classroom. First published in Educational Technology, Nov-Dec 2008 Retrieved March 3 2009 from www.marcprensky.com/writing/default.asp · Sontag, M. (2009). A learning theory for 21st-century students. Innovate 5 (4). http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=524 (accessed March 31, 2009). · Timperley, H., A. Wilson, H. Barrar, and I. Fung (2007), Teacher Professional Learning and Development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration, Wellington: Ministry of Education. · Yu, Guoxing (December 2004). Perception, Practice and Progress, Asian EFL Journal (6/4). Online at: http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/december_04_GY.php
Use of this report: We are willing for this report to be published on TKI.
Signature: Anne Scott HOF Languages Mount Albert Grammar School
W Gibbs (Year 11 German x2), M Lee (Year 10 Japanese), E Liu (Year 10 & 11 Chinese),
B Lynch (Year 10 French), F Quirke (Year 10 French), A Scott (Year 10 German x2)
We would also like to acknowledge two people from our school community whose support of this project has been invaluable:
· E Goddard, e-Learning Director, ensured that each language class had access to ICT for two or three periods per term, introduced language teachers and classes to new technologies and readily supported them whenever needed.
· D Scott, IT Consultant, volunteered to collate and analyse the survey data for us.
Mount Albert Grammar School (MAGS)
Alberton Avenue, Mount Albert Grammar School, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025
wgibbs@mags.school.nz, egoddard@mags.school.nz, mlee@mags.school.nz, eliu@mags.school.nz, blynch@mags.school.nz, fquirke@mags.school.nz, ascott@mags.school.nz
16-544-973
Six Year 10 Chinese, French, German and Japanese classes and two Year 11 German classes in a co-ed state secondary school with approx 2300 students (2010), from the following backgrounds (ERO report, 2007):
NZE – 39%, Maori – 14%, Samoan – 8%, Indian – 6%, Tongan – 5%, Chinese – 5%, Other European – 4%, Other Asian – 4%, Cook Island – 3%, Niuean – 3%, South East Asian - 2%, Other Pacific - 2%, Other Ethnicities – 5%.
For this project we use the terms ‘retention’ and ‘attrition’ to mean the number of students who opt to continue or discontinue learning languages.
Virtual communication in the second language (L2) using asynchronous tools for genuine purposes:
We wanted our students to take part in virtual L2 exchanges firstly with other L2 learning students in our own school, secondly with other L2 learners in New Zealand and thirdly with first language (L1) speakers in L2 nations.
Student voice was used in the following ways:
· Students contributed to baseline data which was used to inform project goals
· From the baseline data, a netiquette document for L2 virtual exchanges was compiled
· Students reflected on the learning objectives of each set of ICT lessons and completed Plus Minus Interesting (PMI) surveys which allowed teachers to consider the programme direction and teaching strategies
· Students completed subject choice surveys at the start and end of year.
The theoretical base that underpinned our topic includes:
· Intercultural Language Teaching (iCLT) principles that state good language learning pedagogy
o Engages students in genuine social interaction
o Acknowledges and responds appropriately to diverse learners and learning contexts
o Helps students manage interaction across cultural boundaries anticipating misunderstandings and difference in meanings (Byram 1995)
o Gives students the ability to negotiate meaning across cultural boundaries and to establish one’s own identity as a user of another language
· Ellis principles that state successful instructed language learning
o Ensures students acquire a rich repertoire of formulaic expressions
o Focuses predominantly on meaning
o Requires opportunities for output as well as input
o Gives students the opportunity to interact in the L2, which is central to developing L2 proficiency
o Creates opportunities for more differentiated instruction as students work to their ‘in-built syllabus’
· The New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) on e-learning and pedagogy (page 36)
· Te Aho Arataki Marau, which provides a model of language teaching as inquiry (page 20)
· Vygotsky’s 1978/1986 ideas regarding*
o Knowledge being social in nature and constructed through a process of collaboration, interaction, and communication among learners in social settings
o The student’s zone of proximal development and the scaffolding that supports learning, including peer and teacher feedback
· Research from a variety of Second Language Acquisition experts* (Bley-Vroman, 1986; Carroll & Swain, 1993; Chaudron, 1988; Mackey, Gass & McDonough, 2000; Rutherford, 1987; White, 1991, 1989) that indicates corrective feedback plays a role in L2 learning
· NZALT research on retention and attrition rates that found that students discontinue learning languages they enjoy if they feel they will not succeed
· The Ministry of Education document, 2007, Te whai i nga taumata atakura: Supporting Maori achievement in bachelors degrees and the Education Review Office report, 2006, The achievement of Maori Students, which give guidance regarding engaging Maori students in learning.
* These references are quoted in the December 2004 article by Guoxing Yu, Perception, Practice and Progress, in the Asian EFL Journal, Volume 6, Issue 4, Article 9.
Refer also to the bibliography below.
The improvement we wanted to achieve, the evidence that indicated its importance and the research that we used to underpin our decision:
We chose asynchronous virtual exchanges in the hope that genuine communication (online talk) in the L2 would increase student engagement and result in some increase in retention rates into senior L2 classes. The evidence that showed this to be important was the continued low retention rates into senior language classes at MAGS over many years and the knowledge gained through teacher observation and student surveys that students who enjoy their language learning will choose to continue.
We must, however, indicate other factors in students’ subject choices. Teacher observation (A) and student surveys (B) provided us with information regarding these, as did the writings of the 2003 National Languages Advisor (C).
A: Teachers observed the following as factors in students’ subject choices:
· School languages policy (i.e. which languages are compulsory and at which levels)
· Timetable (the number of hours studied, option subject clashes, competition from other subjects, single entry points to learning, multi-level classes)
· Influence of parents and friends.
They also noted two factors that could limit the success of the project:
· Access to ICT. In the two computer suites available to all students at MAGS, NCEA classes have priority as do junior core classes so bookings for languages classes need to be made a term in advance, which means there is little hope of ‘seamless’ integration of ICT into language learning.
· Differences in time zones, school years and language learning experience in L2 countries.
To mitigate these two factors we chose asynchronous virtual tools for our genuine communication. As a result, students were able to access the tools from home and were also reminded that school computers were available before and after school, at interval and at lunchtime.
B: Student survey responses indicated that those who opt to keep learning a language do so because they enjoy it (39%), they like the challenge (22%), they like the teacher (20%), they think it will help their career (18%). We also know from the same surveys that 36% of students opt to stop learning a language because they think it will not help their career, because they do not enjoy it (30%), because they find it too difficult (23%), because they find it takes too much time compared to other subjects (18% ) and because of timetable clashes (16%).
Owing to the above factors indicated by students and teachers, our senior classes at MAGS are not only small but they also contain only the brightest students and native speakers.
C: In a 2003 New Zealand Association of Language Teachers (NZALT) communication for International Languages Week, the national languages advisor quoted the ERO Winter Report of 1994, which answered the question, “Do you have to be bright to learn languages?”
“The study of a second language is not intrinsically difficult; it is the exigencies that schools place on the second language learning and teaching that makes the study difficult. It is the organization and delivery of the curriculum rather than student ability that perpetuates the perceived elite status of second language learning in schools.” In some schools language students have as little as one term in Year 9 and a semester in Year 10. It is hardly surprising then that these students find it extremely difficult to achieve high grades in NCEA, when other students at this level have studied the language for three full years…or more! Nor can it be surprising that students in these schools choose to drop the language because they don’t think they are any good at it (their results are not as good as in other subjects) even if they really enjoy it.
At MAGS in 2010, most Year 9 students must study two languages for half a year, three hours a week then in Year 10 may opt for languages, which they study all year for an average of two and a half periods a week. This interrupted and limited learning time and the subsequent pressure to cover the curriculum is a major factor in attrition rates.
Even so, we hoped that student involvement in virtual exchanges for genuine purposes would go some way to counteract these mitigating factors.
Does the use of social learning software for genuine social interaction promote student engagement and encourage increased retention in language classes from Year 10 to Year 11?
1. At the first PD day, teachers explored asynchronous online tools and environments and decided to use the blog (with wysiwig editor) on myclasses (the MAGS online classroom), Voki, threaded discussion on Nicenet, and also considered the wiki in myclasses. During the first set of ICT classes, we discovered difficulties in myclasses with Japanese and Chinese scripts and were concerned about workload and security when inviting non-MAGS students into the MAGS network. At the second PD day, we decided to move to Edmodo as the online environment for our virtual exchanges to address these issues. Edmodo is a web-based public tool accessible to educators worldwide for the purposes of social learning. It is promoted as safe in that students and teachers require codes to participate in classes/groups.
The Year 11 German teacher opted to use email as his classes would be affected by internals and end-of-year NCEA preparation.
2. We planned three or four sets of lab sessions per class over the year with two or three periods (hours) each set (depending on lab access). Each set had specific learning objectives. The objectives changed over time according to lessons learned in previous sets. Teachers with multiple classes were able to make effective modifications within the same set as information derived from one class was used to improve learning in the other.
3. We set up the computers with Chinese and Japanese scripts and individual teachers kept scripts in mind as they planned. For example, Voki supported Japanese scripts but not Chinese.
4. We recognised that MAGS students want to communicate with L2 speakers in the L2 but L2 speakers might want to communicate in English. We therefore set up separate English and L2 groups in Edmodo so that English didn’t become the dominant language. Different tasks were set in each language area.
5. Feedback on accuracy in the overwhelming number of student posts soon became an issue. When students’ work was instantly published, teachers struggled with the balance between focus on meaning and focus on form. We explored ways to give students feedback in a manner that would not discourage participation. Different teachers developed different strategies:
Teacher 1 assisted students as they drafted their posts and posted a positive response with feedback and feed forward for each of the 26 students. She also wrote explanatory screen notes to each student regarding each error in their work. It took many hours and could not be sustained.
Teacher 2 reviewed individual posts and replied online with general comments e.g. check plural endings. She went back to check whether students had followed her instructions. During lab time she verbally commented on effective technology and language features. Her 27 students were given opportunity during class time to edit and improve their postings.
Teacher 3 scaffolded students’ posts before the lab session by asking students to write first on paper. In the lab, with a smaller class of 16 students, she was able to help students correct their work before they posted it. Then she went back online, edited errors in students’ posts and talked to them about it afterwards. It took a very long time.
After the first session, teacher 4 realised it was taking too much time to correct and comment on individual posts so she directed students to a good sample of work then commented on common language errors and asked the 23 students to edit their posts accordingly. Students were then asked to edit two or three others’ work, starting with those posts without any comments yet.
With two classes of students (23 and 24 respectively), teacher 5 realised she couldn’t correct work in the normal manner and so read the posts, gathered common errors and taught to them at the start of the next lesson, asking students first to self-edit then peer-edit. In the second set of classes, she set up groups of four in Edmodo. Students posted and edited in their online groups, which was more manageable.
Teacher 6 projected the L2 emails sent to his students onto the classroom screen and used them to model language and to teach formulaic expressions which students then used in their return emails.
How we incorporated student voice and teacher self-review in the inquiry cycle:
Students completed baseline surveys on the subjects of intercultural understandings, appropriate technologies for online talk and the dos and don’ts of online communication. They also completed a start of year and end of year survey on their reasons for dropping or continuing a language.
After each lab set, students completed PMI surveys measured against the learning objectives of each set. Teachers also completed reflections after each set.
How we analysed the data:
From the baseline data, we discovered that the students already understood very well what appropriate online L2 communication looked like. We did not therefore look for an increase of understanding over the year. Instead, we collated the students’ baseline survey suggestions and compiled them into a one-page netiquette document that was referred to before and during each set of labs. Despite knowing what was appropriate and despite being reminded, a small number of students still chose to post inappropriately during each set of labs. They needed to be reminded that online learning requires the same level of language as classroom learning.
The data from the PMI surveys after each set of labs were collated and informed individual teachers regarding the fulfilment of learning objectives in their classes and, when combined with all classes’ data, informed the planning for the next set.
Data on 2009-10 retention rates were compared with data on 2010-2011 retention rates to see if the ICT element had any significant effect.
The data from teacher reflections informed ongoing planning and pedagogy during the year.
Note: Initially, for workload reasons, each teacher was asked to collate the data from their own classes according to a template. When an outside volunteer collated all the data we gained a better overview. We found that even having the same template and model was not sufficient to ensure data were collected and presented in a way that provided for valid comparisons and conclusions across the whole.
Maori and Pasifika Students
In fulfilment of school goals and separate to this project, language teachers identified Maori and Pasifika students in their mark books and reported on their language progress, learning habits and social behaviour. Of the 130 students in Year 10 language classes, 10 were Pasifika and 11 were Maori, totalling 16%. This is fewer than in the school as a whole where these ethnicities total 35%.
Teachers reported that most Maori and Pasifika students who opted for Year 10 language classes were working well and achieving well except for 2 Pasifika and 4 Maori students in Year 10 French and 2 Pasifika students in Year 10 Chinese whose underachievement was due in the main to chronic absenteeism. A 2006 Education Review Office report found that when Maori students are meaningfully engaged in learning, their attendance levels are likely to be comparable to those of non-Maori students. A 2007 Ministry of Education document on supporting Maori achievement in bachelors degrees says that “(e)nsuring that students are at school, engaged in their learning, and achieving in their early secondary school years is a critical precursor for the School Plus goal of having all young people in education, training or workplace until the age 18”. We hoped that technology would meaningfully engage our underachieving Maori and Pasifika students.
At the start of the year, all students in language classes were surveyed regarding computer and internet access at home. Only two students said they had no home access to the internet, one was Pasifika. Teachers of these two students made certain they had extra support using technology during ICT classes. According to Alton-Lee (2003), “(r)esearch suggests some of the most powerful ways to counter student disengagement include:
· Whanau and teachers having high expectations of students
· Students having high expectations of themselves
· Teachers who are focused on meeting students’ needs.”
As well as this focused attention during class time, languages homework help is offered during lunchtimes and after school to all students and is regularly attended by certain Pasifika and Maori students.
1. When using Web 2.0 one-to-many online environments for language learning, there was a major increase in L2 output for authentic purposes.
2. Offering students the opportunity to use preferred web-based tools increased L2 interaction for genuine purposes.
3. Once teachers and students became proficient with the technologies, second language acquisition returned to its rightful place at the centre of learning.
4. The use of social learning software for genuine social interaction promoted student engagement and increased the relevance of language learning.
5. The use of social learning software for genuine social interaction did not significantly increase retention rates from Year 10 into Year 11. In 2009, the retention rate from Year 10 to 11 was 42%. In 2010, the retention rate from Year 10 to 11 was 45%.
6. Mitigating factors against retention (i.e. language policy, timetable issues, the influence of parents and friends, limited contact time and a class having four different teachers in one academic year) were largely beyond our control. However, student survey indicated an unrealised additional factor: more than a third of those who discontinued L2 learning said they did so because languages were not relevant to their chosen career. This is something over which we do have control. We are able to educate students in this area.
7. ICTs use teacher time differently. There is much more preparation time involved but in the ICT classroom the teacher is released to focus on individuals and give instant feedback and feed forward. Teaching with technology is thereby more student-centred.
8. The teachers in both sites of a virtual exchange need to carefully plan the timing in advance. Different time zones and school years and different levels of language experience in the L2 can scuttle communication. There is a very small window of time when successful virtual communication can take place.
9. When contact with L2 speakers occurred students had the opportunity to put their theoretical intercultural knowledge into practice.
We were particularly surprised that it was so very difficult to create successful virtual exchanges using one-to-many tools with others outside MAGS.
· Apart from the ample communication between language students within the school, the Year 10 German students managed to communicate with only one teacher and two students in another New Zealand school and one adult and one student via email in Bavaria. This was disappointing. Even so, valuable links with German schools that will provide a basis for communication in 2011 have been established.
· The Chinese Edmodo exchange got off to a good start. MAGS students briefly communicated with eight students and their teacher at Macleans College. Then fifteen students in China signed on to Edmodo. The correspondence was, however, disrupted by differing holiday breaks in New Zealand and China and the New Zealand students’ communication appeared comparatively short and simple (they were first year language learners). However, two students managed to write more extensively and gave valuable feedback to others.
· Links with Japan proved difficult to forge due to the exigencies of the chosen Japanese exchange school. Their Japanese Exchange Teacher (JET), disappointed by the response, made a point of communicating in Japanese with the 22 New Zealand students who had posted in Edmodo. In the English area of Edmodo, the JET teacher also initiated a conversation comparing aspects of New Zealand and Japan. In their posts our students indicated that they were particularly interested in her comments on the similarities between Maori and Japanese. It ended up being a rewarding experience.
· Although French students communicated extensively with each other in Edmodo, no French connections were made outside the school. One French teacher contacted a school in Strasbourg where she had taught but they indicated they never use ICT for language learning due to poor facilities. The second language teacher contacted the National Languages Advisor who offered to explore the most effective ways to carry out virtual exchanges with French schools. She was very interested in our use of Edmodo and signed up to investigate.
Our struggles resulted in some other very useful discoveries and side-benefits:
1. Email exchanges are useful introductions to spontaneous Web 2.0, one-to-many exchanges. Although the Year 11 German exchange school was initially hesitant owing to previous exchange failures, the NZ teacher still sent the German teacher the email addresses and personal details of his students. 19 out of the 35 NZ students received email messages. Certain recipients moved their connections to Facebook where more connections were made, even amongst students not learning German. The teacher noticed that some students used formulaic expressions learned in class and some German correspondents corrected the NZ students’ German. It was encouraging when the one-to-many communication developed naturally through Facebook and apart from teachers and school.
2. When informally surveyed, the Year 11 students did not feel this communication was a factor in their continuing or discontinuing German. The retention rate for the Year 11 group going into Year 12 was 75%. Of the 11 dropping the subject, 10 were struggling. This backs up the National Language Advisor’s 2003 claim that despite enjoyment, students will drop subjects they don’t think they will succeed in and is evidence backing up our student survey data where 23% said they dropped a language because they found it too difficult and 18% because they found it took too much time compared to other subjects.
3. Like any new worthwhile skill, second language acquisition using technology requires time. All language teachers indicated their priorities are on NCEA pathways, the NZC, Ellis and iCLT principles. In initial lab sets, when students and teachers were new to the technologies and language learning in the lab, teachers were frustrated when language acquisition took secondary place to technology. In later lab sets, as teachers and students were more proficient with the technologies, language learning was more seamlessly integrated. By the third set, 77% students said they had learned to use Edmodo, 62% said they had had fun, 60% felt they wanted more language learning time in the lab and 55% indicated they had practised language skills. Below are examples of optional student comments from their third PMI survey:
“easier to learn than in class”
“learnt new language skills”
“learned a lot of different things”
“corrects language errors”
“made me think of more French words that I could use to expand my vocabulary”
“could do educated things with my friends”
“got to learn about what others do in their spare time”
“had practice reading other people’s posts and it helped a lot”
“trying new things and learning new language skills”
“communicating with other schools”
“ability to type in hiragana”.
4. From the start, Chinese and Japanese teachers found that technology aided the teaching and learning of scripts and they felt the project was valuable for this alone. In the Chinese class the technology provided opportunity for students to improve typing their pinyin (modern Chinese script), which would not usually have happened so quickly. In the Japanese class it extended and reinforced their learning of the different writing systems and increased students’ curiosity of this aspect of Japanese in a more integrated manner. The Japanese teacher will definitely teach the use of different scripts using technology in the future.
5. The teacher who offered the opportunity for students not confident in the L2 to prepare their L1 work first found this allowed students to more easily grasp the intricacies of the technology before moving on to working in the L2. It minimised cognitive overload.
6. One student commented: “It was interesting to know how little people know about how to use computers.” Teachers noted that although students might know how to use computers for specific purposes of interest to them, they are not always able to transfer those skills to learning, specifically second language acquisition. In addition, many PC users bemoaned having to use Macs. The concepts of tuakana-teina and ako relationships were pertinent here: skilled students were able to guide the not-so-skilled (tuakana-teina) and reciprocal learning took place as teachers became learners and learners became teachers (ako).
As we have been given the luxury of time to absorb, adapt and agonise over each aspect of this project, we realise that, even though second language acquisition has been enhanced, a large part of the benefit has been to our teaching practice. It has forced us to reflect on good pedagogy. We are now much more confident when using technology for second language acquisition.
Significance to Individual Teachers:
Teacher 1:
I was the fourth teacher for my classes this year and came into the project half-way through at the start of Term III. I have used technology in the past for publishing (PPT), for tutorial programmes (Linguascope etc), for enrichment and for fun but this is the first time I have used it for virtual communication. I also frequently use data collection and analysis to facilitate review of my teaching programmes.
At my arrival, I realised the work my class put onto Edmodo in the Term 3 lab sessions indicated that they were now ready to start corresponding with French-speaking peers. However, I had no contacts in French schools so I approached the national advisor. I hope to find potential virtual partners for my students in 2011. I now have a basic understanding of how Edmodo works.
Teacher 2:
With regard to teaching as inquiry, I found it helpful to renew student data with regular surveys and feedback to determine the direction of the next set of lab sessions. This helped to specifically pinpoint student needs at various stages throughout the year and to encourage both the students and myself to review our work. I found this data invaluable to my teaching planning and I will employ data collection in the future.
This has been the first time for me using technology for virtual communication and language enrichment. In the past I have used it more for research, publication and for differentiation as I gave direction to online resources for language extension. Obviously I was aware that technology is a valuable learning tool but it is only with this project that I have had the courage and support to explore technology to specifically enrich language learning. Previously I would never have tried anything that hinted at risk or threatened student safety nor attempted such a large undertaking without the support of my department. I enjoyed the professional discussions we had about the logistics of this project and student progress.
My students enjoyed their time in the lab and the attractive online learning site made them excited to immediately post in both French and English. Many motivated students were aware that by using Edmodo they were improving their French and exploring new ways to learn a language. Others who were unmotivated to write in the classroom were willing to write in this medium, even if they didn’t acknowledge the positive impact it had on their second language acquisition and confidence.
It has been challenging to find French schools willing to communicate with us but next year (without having to do all the preliminary research to find an appropriate medium) will mean that we can focus on this genuine contact earlier on in 2011.
Teacher 3:
Using e-learning for languages has caused me to ponder the benefits of using Edmodo as a platform for students in New Zealand to communicate with students in China and in other schools in New Zealand with the purpose of sharing culture, language, ideas etc. I want students to use culture to motivate them to learn the language outside of class time to show them how everything is related to the world out there. Learning is not just about academics in the classroom but it links to the real world. ICTs facilitate this link to reality. They enable students to think about their learning in different ways.
Before I began this project I found e-learning challenging. I wanted to be familiar with tools before I used them in the classroom. I knew I needed to spend a lot of time to upskill on my own and with the e-learning Director. As well as the tools we experimented with, I found others that will achieve learning goals and make learning relevant and interesting for students. I have learned a lot. The skills I have learned have been transferable to other fields as well.
Teacher 4:
For me the project provided a wonderful opportunity to try out technology to promote language learning. If it hadn’t been for this project I would have stayed away, thinking it to be too challenging due to lack of access.
Before and during the project, it was a challenge to learn how to teach with online tools. It has been an agony to find a correct medium to channel language learning. Analysing what we have achieved has been enlightening. I realise that a lot of what I learned at teachers’ college I now know how to do in the real world of teaching. Before there was a gulf between the pedagogy and the reality. I had to throw away my ideals. After the third set it all fell into place. The ideal and the reality came together, they met. It forced me to ask what do my students know, what do I need to do: teaching as an inquiry. It forced me to reflect after each lesson on what my teaching had achieved. I thought of these things before but the project forced me to document my thoughts and it has given me valuable time to talk about these things with my colleagues.
During the project, finding another group to interact with my students was the biggest challenge and I can see this happening in the future as well, unless I develop a sound network in Japan where I can explain the purpose and method face-to-face. Because of this difficulty I’m not sure whether I’ll use Edmodo but I found that using technology is an extremely useful way to engage students when it comes to language practice.
I discovered that a well set up task sheet facilitates student-centred learning. Also, in particular, I discovered that teaching students how to type Japanese was a good opportunity to introduce, revise and reinforce Japanese scripts. It gave a nice natural transition from roomaji to hiragana. I will definitely teach scripts using technology in the future.
Teacher 5:
I was surprised by the overwhelming amount of language that one class of students can produce in one hour (including responses to each other’s postings) and by the workload if the teacher focuses on form as well as meaning. I had to let go of ‘accuracy’ and let communication become the focus.
Students commented on how much they enjoyed seeing each other’s work. As a teacher I had forgotten the obvious, that although I see their work and know what they are up to, they don’t see each other’s work unless it is published. Publishing online also provides wonderful opportunities for scaffolded learning.
Because of our limited contact time in junior language classes, it is easy to spend more time on the teacher-centred presentation stage of new language learning in order to ‘get through’ the curriculum. This project forced me to focus on using technology to promote student-centred learning. It was very satisfying. Even if we didn’t achieve our ultimate communication with L2 speakers, students enjoyed communicating with each other and had plenty of student-centred language practice and production. I will work hard to include technology in language teaching and learning in the future.
Teacher 6:
In the Year 11 group, the initial benefit was the appreciation of the application of e-learning technology. Both students and teacher learned how to use Mac computers. It was important that a large class has computers that functioned effectively. It was also important that the e-learning Director introduce each new application. I became aware that students would get side-tracked into entertaining themselves on a computer if the lesson were not strictly paced. Blogs and emails were ideal tools for a Year 11 class since self-introduction and student exchanges are a standard topic in the Year 11 curriculum. Further benefits came through the increased exposure students received from German-language emails containing idiomatic expressions and the establishment of open-ended e-friendships.
Moving forward from here:
A: Data Collection and Analysis
In future, we intend to:
1. Hone the student survey templates
2. Repeat pertinent student surveys annually to build up a longitudinal data base
3. Use a data collation and analysis person
B: Mitigating Factors
We intend to:
4. Lobby for increased access to ICT
5. Lobby for increased and uninterrupted language learning time
C: Setting Up Virtual Exchanges
We intend:
6. Maintain hard-won exchange links with L2 schools
7. Plan exchanges with L2 teachers well in advance
8. Continue the conversation with the National Languages Advisor concerning ways to carry out exchanges with France
D: Teaching Practice
We intend to:
9. Closely monitor Maori and Pasifika students’ engagement and ICT use
10. Educate students on the relevance of languages to their future career choices
11. Use email as an introduction to Web 2.0 communication tools
12. Use ICT to teach Japanese and Chinese scripts
In Conclusion
13. Our ultimate goal is that virtual exchanges with L2 speakers will be sustained long after any school project ends, taking on a life of its own and that it will enthuse our students with a life-long love of language learning. This has already occurred to some degree with the Year 11 German students.
We intend to share our findings by:
· Presenting them to the Academic Committee of the Board of Trustees
· Sending them to the National Languages Advisor
· Presenting this report to the MOE
· Sharing knowledge gained at local languages cluster meetings.
· Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence synthesis. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
· Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Cavanagh, T., Teddy, L. (2007). Te Kōtahitanga Phase 3 Whanaungatanga: Establishing a Culturally Responsive Pedagogy of Relations in Mainstream Secondary School Classrooms. Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
· Byram, M. 1995. Acquiring Intercultural Competence. A Review of Learning Theories, in L. Sercu: 53-69.
· Cooper, Terry. (2007). ICT in the Languages World, Sources and resources. Retrieved February 27 2009 from http://www.languages-ict.org.uk/
· Edmodo (2010). Online at: http://www.edmodo.com
· Education Counts (2009), Retention of students in senior secondary schools (January 2009) Retrieved on August 23 2009 from the MOE web site: http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/data_cubes/student_participation/schooling/3736
· Education Review Office (2006). The achievement of Maori Students.
· Education Review Office (1994). Second Language Learning. National Education Evaluation Report No. 6, Winter 1994. Wellington: Education Review Office.
· Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed Second Languages Acquisition: A literature Review. Wellington: Ministry of Education. www.minedul.govt.nz
· Ellis R. 10 principles for successful instructed second language learning (NZC Generic Framework for Learning Languages (LL) wallchart (item11282), at: http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/NZC-resource-bank/Learning-languages/Key-resources)
· Hattie, J.A.C. (2005). Teachers make a difference: What is the nature evidence that makes a difference to learning?. Research Conference paper Using Data to Support Learning. p. 11-31.
· Krashen, Stephen D. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, in the Language Teaching Methodology Series (1995).
· Ministry of Education (2007), Te whai i nga taumata atakura: Supporting Maori achievement in bachelors degrees· Ministry of Education. (2008), Key Evidence and how we must use it to improve system performance for Māori. Wellington: Learning Media
· Ministry of Education. (2009), Ka Hikitia managing for success: The Maori education strategy, 2008-2012 Updated 2009, Wellington: Learning Media.
· Ministry of Education (2009). Te Aho Arataki Marau mō te Ako i Te Reo Māori - Kura Auraki: Curriculum Guidelines for Teaching and Learning Te Reo Māori in English-medium Schools: Years 1-13. Wellington: Learning Media Ltd for Crown/Ministry of Education
· Ministry of Education (2007). Te whai i nga taumata atakura: Supporting Maori achievement in bachelors degrees.
· Ministry of Education (2007), The New Zealand Curriculum, Wellington: Learning Media Ltd. for Crown/Ministry of Education
· Newton, J., Yates, E., Shearn, S., and Nowitzki, W. (2009). Intercultural Communicative Language Teaching (iCLT): Implications for Effective Teaching and Learning. Report to Ministry of Education (in press) Wellington.
· New Zealand Association of Language Teachers (2003). International Languages Week communication online: www.international-languages-week.org.nz/ilw.pdf
· New Zealand Qualifications Authority. (2007). Te rautaki Māori me te mahere whakatinana a te mana tohu mātauranga o Aotearoa: The Māori strategic and implementation plan for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority 2007–2012. Wellington: New Zealand Qualifications Authority
· Prensky, Mark. (2008). The Role of Technology in Teaching and in the Classroom. First published in Educational Technology, Nov-Dec 2008 Retrieved March 3 2009 from www.marcprensky.com/writing/default.asp
· Sontag, M. (2009). A learning theory for 21st-century students. Innovate 5 (4). http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=524 (accessed March 31, 2009).
· Timperley, H., A. Wilson, H. Barrar, and I. Fung (2007), Teacher Professional Learning and Development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration, Wellington: Ministry of Education.
· Yu, Guoxing (December 2004). Perception, Practice and Progress, Asian EFL Journal (6/4). Online at:
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/december_04_GY.php
We are willing for this report to be published on TKI.
Anne Scott
HOF Languages
Mount Albert Grammar School